Observational study of organisational responses of 17 US hospitals over the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has required significant modifications of hospital care. The objective of this study was to examine the operational approaches taken by US hospitals over time in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prospective observational study of 17 geographically diverse US hospitals from February 2020 to February 2021. OUTCOMES AND ANALYSIS: We identified 42 potential pandemic-related strategies and obtained week-to-week data about their use. We calculated descriptive statistics for use of each strategy and plotted percent uptake and weeks used. We assessed the relationship between strategy use and hospital type, geographic region and phase of the pandemic using generalised estimating equations (GEEs), adjusting for weekly county case counts. RESULTS: We found heterogeneity in strategy uptake over time, some of which was associated with geographic region and phase of pandemic. We identified a body of strategies that were both commonly used and sustained over time, for example, limiting staff in COVID-19 rooms and increasing telehealth capacity, as well as those that were rarely used and/or not sustained, for example, increasing hospital bed capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic varied in resource intensity, uptake and duration of use. Such information may be valuable to health systems during the ongoing pandemic and future ones.

Using the National Incident Management System to Prepare Physicians for Rapid Responses: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to determine the feasibility of training physicians in the principles of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and Incident Command System (ICS) as applied to in-hospital rapid responses and to assess physicians' attitudes regarding rapid responses. METHODS: This was an educational pilot study. Resident physicians completed a pre-survey, followed by online training in the principles of NIMS and ICS, a knowledge test, and a post-survey. RESULTS: The number of residents who participated was 22. In the pre-survey, most (20/22) did not have a working understanding of NIMS/ICS. Participants (21/22) agreed that residents should have more training in resource organization. On the knowledge test, the median score was 9.5/10. In the post-survey, participants felt more comfortable clearing extra resources from the scene (P < 0.001) and that it would be easier to keep track of resources (P < 0.001). Most indicated that they had a working understanding of NIMS/ICS (P < 0.001) and felt more comfortable establishing command using NIMS/ICS (P < 0.001). All agreed that they would consider using an NIMS/ICS-based structure on their next rapid response. CONCLUSIONS: Training physicians in the principles of NIMS/ICS as they pertain to rapid responses is feasible and appears to change residents' attitudes about rapid responses.